<t> I would hope that the game does have the feature of returning leaders for political points since I believe it is integral.<br/>
<br/>
This brings up another important point about the accuring victory points. As you move lower on the politcal-point display the incremental loss of victory points ...

You could certainly have a sequence of manuevers and 2-3 battles over a course of 3-4 turns (months) in the game. However, many of the details of the Waterloo Campaign would be abstracted and not visible or controllable by the players. There is no scenario that replays these events.

Is World at War the computer version of Advanced Third Reich/Empire of the Rising Sun? Is it available now or something still being built?

I would seek a conditional or informal peace with Russia to face France but I guess it depends on how the AI of the respective countries is set up.

Where's the rest of the Russian Army?

<t> Remeber that the situation will not always be that England has a stronger Navy than everyone else combined and it will thus be harder for her to thumb her nose at everyone simultaneously.<br/>
<br/>
Also, even if England has such naval dominance, she may not have that much political dominance ...

Thanks Marshall.

You are welcome.

<t> You bid 100 for France. You crush the Austrians. You end the game early. You had fun. However, because you bid so much for France, Austria, despite being "beaten" will win over France because they have reached a higher percentage of their required VP total when the game terminates prematurely ...

<t> The point of bidding is not just to require someone to give up VPs to play the country they want. The "guys that have used bidding" are not only following the rules and playing to win but also recognize that the bidding system forces players to balance their desire to play a certain country with ...

<t> Will there be any kind of list or description of what "Empires in Harm" modifications have made it into the PC game; i.e., how the PC game differes from the original board game? This would include any changes in the PC game that were not derived from Empires in Harm. This would not include any ...

I'd humbly recommend going back and reading the October update for a taste of what the Nov. update will say. I doubt it will be materially different (just add thirty days to any "projected dates").

<t>I can certainly understand the nature of the "problem" posed in the initial post. However I would think that it is somewhat ameliorated by:<br/>
<br/>
1) The fact that a retreating leader is not winning victory points. Though there are certianly situations, even long running ones, where one must ...

<t>For those of you who have played the 1812 campaign game (not so much the scenario), I'm curious as to what strategies you've employed as France or seen employed by France to meet the Moscow/St. Petersburg occupation requirements w/out loosing the army? Which ones have worked or not worked.<br ...

<t>In the 1805 scenario England has no possessions in Germany, or mainland Europe for that matter other than Gibralter.<br/>
<br/>
Historically George III, as a Hanoverian, may have had some ancestral claim to territories in those areas but I don't think that's the case--other than the obvious ...

English Possessions?

How many troops are assigned to Davout and Ney in this situation?

<t>I believe the money and manpower collection step comes before the econ manipulation step. My understanding has always been that "collecting manpower" under the civil disorder rule pertains exclusively to the manpower collected during the former step. Thus, econ mannipulation could neither prevent ...

<r><QUOTE author="pfnognoff"><s>[QUOTE=pfnognoff]</s>It was usualy used to reduce manpower and increase VPs.<br/>
<br/>
Turkey - every economic phase, except when the money man from Paris arrives<br/>
<br/>
Other powers - try to use this option if it would make them score more VPs that turn, and if ...

Seconded

I'm curious as to other player's thoughts on Economic Manipulation. Who uses it, who doesn't, why, etc.?